Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

trafalgar .. your reply is incomprehinsable and your insult is typical of your abiding dislike of me. Icertainly dislike your opinions and have openly stated this on many occassions revision )spelling but have left some to amuse

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:42:00

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:49:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:59pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Contradictions

Cashel,

Trafalgar's post was not incoherent, it was quite succinct and logical.

You called the film smut in your header of your original post. Do you consider smut to be obscene? If not, what is your definition of smut? The OED says smut is "Indecent or obscene language," and dictionary.com says that it is "Obscenity in speech or writing; Pornography." Smut is obscenity, and you called the film smut. Therefore, based on the definition, you called the film obscene.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 3, 2004 11:40am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Sorry, my "if" should have read "of".
Anyway, the point has already been made: Jack called the film smut. Some people disagree. No big deal.
And really I swear, Jack, I bear you no malice. Sometimes I don't think you're for real...but malice? No.